Bungling doctor struck off after he mistook a patient’s ankle for their elbow

Medic who was removed from register for "sub-standard medical knowledge" worked in three different hospitals

By AODHAN O'FAOLAIN

19th October 2016, 9:02 am

Updated: 22nd October 2016, 1:41 pm

A DOCTOR who mistook an ankle for an elbow in an X-ray has lost his appeal against being struck off.

Dr Omar Hassan Khalafalla Mohamed, 30, was removed from the medical register over concerns for his "sub-standard medical knowledge" after several incidents, including causing a burn injury to a patient during a gall bladder operation.

The former medic was found guilty by a Fitness to Practice Committee earlier this year on multiple grounds that were related to his conduct and professional performance.

Dr Omar was struck off the medical register today over concerns for his "sub-standard medical knowledge"

As a result, the Irish Medical Council recommended he be removed from the medical register.

On Monday, the High Court president expressed concern at how a doctor with “such sub-standard medical knowledge” — including mistaking an ankle for an elbow — could have been employed in three different hospitals.

RELATED STORIES

Sex beast doc caged

Doctor who molested 23 women is jailed AGAIN after indecently assaulting victim in examination

GP checks miss

Doctors putting tots at risk of life-threatening illnesses by failing to test kids with fevers

'LIKE BEING SHOT IN THE FACE'

KNOW THE SYMPTOMS OF CANCER

Dr Keith Hopcroft explains the ten signs that suggest you DON'T have cancer

Mr Justice Peter Kelly acknowledged that the Medical Council had also expressed similar concern in its report. Hassan had worked at Midland Regional Hospital in Portlaoise, Mayo General Hospital and Galway University Hospital between 2012 and 2014.

After the judge confirmed his striking off, Dr Hassan, who qualified in Sudan, said: “For me it is meaningless.”

When the judge ordered he pay the costs of the legal action, Hassan said he did “not believe in the integrity of the procedure” and did not believe it was a fair decision. In his appeal to the court, he argued that the evidence against him did not meet the required standard.